qizmoduis said:
No, it doesn't, unless your definition of religion is so sweeping as to be meaningless.
But then, that's an oft-used tactic of anti-science crusaders. It's much easier, for them, to redefine words than it is to do the real work that good science requires.
Then how do we define religion? How about atheism? Is lack of belief a religion? agnostic? Those who seek or don't have enough evidence? Is it a matter of faith? Since we all have faith of some sort (to the point of ridiculous, you don't check your chairs when you sit down), is it a matter of where we put out faith? Must religion be organized? Must there be a central authority? How about spiritualism? Is it a matter of seeking answers about life and the universe? You can define your definition of religion to suite yourself. (waits for the dictionary links to appear). Regardless, its diverging from the original intent of the thread... perhaps another thread on the topic is in order?
Defining religion is not anti-science, nor "real work". Some use a broad definition, some use a narrow. I don't consider myself anti-science, especially since I'm a scientist. However, I do have a broad interpretation of what religion is. As science has progressed, its been trying to answer more and more questions that has generally been left in the hands of religion. Is this bad? I don't think so. But it does start crossing the line between religion and non-religion. Some follow science with the same furvor of the religious fanatic, and hold by its tenets as strongly. To me, thats expressing faith (perhaps not in the results, but the process?).
With regard to stepping into the bounds of religion, I guess a little clarification is useful. Science is good at answering certain questions. The process is useful in many quests for knowledge. However, as science has progressed, its own set of "morality" has emerged. If we examine science w/out some form of external morality, we run into problems. Are the expirements performed by the Nazi's science? Is the science performed moral? If we remove the morality, or allow its own morality to develop (whatever is good for science is ok), we start having problems:
Naziesque human expirementation
Animal torture for medical benefits
Development of modern abortion techniques
Cloning techniques being applied to humans
Now, are all of these wrong? People disagree. However, the answers should -not- be saught from the realm of science, though many find their answers there.
